The original documents are located in Box 33, folder “Nixon Pardon - Hungate Subcommittee: Background Material (2)” of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.

Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.

Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized. Digitized from Box 33 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library This page was digitized from a poor quality original.

s r

b ~ 1 r .

ll nc ~ rc 1 lg t n

l

n

1 lt .cf'

u: ov.

1 lif :ti

it e

t n

b t

:l

)C y

r f

1

1 d 2

No words can describe the depth of my regret and

pain at the anguish rnv mistakes over ·watergate have

caused the Nation and the Presidency--- a Nation

I so deeply love, and an institution I so greatly

respect.

I know that many fair-minded people believe that my

motivations and actions in the Watergate affair

were intentionally self-serving and illegal. I now understand how my own mistakes and misjudgments

have contributed to that belief and seemed to support it. This burden is the heaviest one of all to bear.

'J;hat the way I tried to deal with Watergate was the wrong way is a burden I shall bear for every day of the life that is left to me.

# # #

'.) '

Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to these materials.

TIME MAGAZINF.

September 30, 1974

. - THE PRESIDENCY /MUGM SIDEY show that he helP"'..d Nixon continue his deception. Yet, six months before the end, Haig and Kissinger saw, an anguished impeachment trial, bare survival for Nixon. A Loyaiist's Departure And even that was the thinnest of hunches. Did Haig begin to ease the way for a Nixon resignation then? Probably. General Alexander Haig has paid his dues to the United Haig knew that Watergate was taking a terrible physical States. Several times. toll of Nixon. The viral pneumonia was the first signal. Yet From West Point to Korea, from the Pentagon to Viet Nixon could come back to his peak. Said Haig: "The Pres­ Nam, he answered every call to duty. Then Richard Nixon ident performed brilliantly in the Middle East and Russia." called him one day when Haig, at the time a four-star gen- When Haig learned of the last transcript, be knew Nixon era! and Army vice chiei of staff, was visiting Fort Benning. was finished. He believes Nixon knew it too. Some others in Haldeman and Ehrlichman, about to be thrown out of the the White House did not. Haig moved through the murk. White House, wanted Haig to come take charge of the staff. The question that concerned - o•m .usmo "I really don't think I'm the man," he said. "You don't want him most was whether the coun- . ···· ,..,, a military man in that job." try was ready for the events The loyalty ethic is strong with Haig. He went. But not ahead, and Haig moved skillful-· blindly. "You won't come out alive," a friend told him. Haig . Iy to get the tapes out and bring had been through the Cuban missile crisis, made 13 trips to- the country abreast of them. . Viet Nam. "I don't think professional public servants haveef. A · • ·.-: -~- · the luxury to play it safe in time of national crisis," he said. // Haig retains admiration for . Haig sat last week in the luxurious office that Haldeman""-· ixon in that dark hour. "There had crafted so carefully for himself. Almost by t11e hour there was every idea imaginable were new accusations hurled at him--he had got Nixon his around," he declared, "including . pardon, he had subverted the Ford transition with his se- the idea that Ni.JI,on should par~ . ; crecy and obsession to protect· the Nixon record. He was · don himself_ and everybody •:· ·being blamed for more than he had ever -done. But he has · else." There were only two op-·: never admitted just how much he did do. "I may write it · tions seriously considered. . The some day when rm 60," he mused (he is now 49). He saw the first was to resign unconditional-· destruction of a President at closcrrange than Myone else. ly, as he did, or see it through and · "Nothing on the battlefield was as tcugh as this," Haig iet the system work to the end. said:"Nor did I ever see any more human tragedy." - He knew the outcome. He~elt · - Never in our history has a White House aide been at the obligation to the country." · . vortex of such pressure, been the man to orchestrate so many . Haig never worried · ut traumatic events, hcen torn by so many peQ:OUal· emotions, Nixon or anybody in the White. doubts, loyalties. How could he have continued to believe in House tUrning to the military to Nixon? It is no simple matter to arrange your sense of duty preserve his power. ''The danger ~ when you see it as Haig did. "It involves the country and the was from outside forces-that American people," is aU he will say now.}'That's what it was from so much frustration some- aU about." He deserves to be listened to. body would take events into his • hands and use.extraconstitution- .UE.'ICA~i:IElt HAIG Was he acting President in those last Nixon months? "I at means or some distortion of had to do things I would not have done undec ordinary ci.r- the 25th Amendment. The country was very fortunate in the cumstances," he replied. "You cannot avoid responsibility." outcome. I am at peace with myself. The system works. We Was there ever a time that Nixon was irrational, unable to have seen a total transferofpowerina way that brings usnoth- act? "If there were, I wouldn't tell anybody," he said. i.ng but hope for the future." · When he began his last White House tour of duty, he Haig was for the Nixon pardon. But he was not respon- found almost total paralysis in the wake of the Haldeman-Ehr- sible for Ford's granting it, he insisted. "Had I been asked to lichman firing. He got the machinery going again. He found be an advocate, I would have been. I was never asked." that Nixon had no Watergate cowtsel. Haig recruited Fred Haig is wiser now than when be came to the White House Buzhardt from the Pentagon and urged Nixon to Jay out all 17 months ago. He still is a fighter. He goes to the NATO com­ of the Watergate case. When Nixon made his May 22 state- mand with relish, despite criticism. And ev.:n with some ment, Haig thought that was the whole story. How could he humor. Henry J

' WATERGATE SPECIAL Pl~OSECllTIO~ FORCE United St ;l tc~ J){·panm:::nt 0f Ju~ticc 1425 K St1cet, N.W. Washir;t:ton, IJ.C. 20005

October 12, 1974

Honorable \·nlliam B. Saxbe I The Attorney GenG:ral U. S. Departrr.ent of Justice Washington, D. C. Dear Hr. Saxbe:

Along \,•i th r.1y letter of re~ignation, I beg to hand you here~'li th a copy of our latest interim report "tvhich reflects the principal activities of the Special Prosecutor's office to date.

Tt:lo of the results achieved relate to the mandate directed to thi~ office to investigate allegations involving the President. Both are without precedent.

One is the extensive grand jury r e port on the . involvement of ~ichard M. Nixon in Watergate cover­ up activities, prepared for the grand jury by this .office and sent to ~~e House Judiciary Co~mittee .last Harch, after successful litigation through the trial and appellate courts. vlhile the grand jury report, "rhich presented the chain of evidence in detail, has not been published, I am informed that it served as a major guide for the staff and :.:embers of the Committee in the development of the presenta­ tion leading to the Articles of Impeachment.

The second involved the successful litiga tion of a tria l subpoena f or tape r e corded e \·idence in the hands of the President of the United States. The Supreme Court's unani::-.ous· decision supporting the subpoena of the Special Prosecutor compelled the former President to release, among others, the tape recording of June 2 3, 19 7 3, Hhich serve d as a fore­ runner to his resignation. - 2

Although not appropriate . for corunent until ·after the · sequestering of the jury in United States v. Hitchell, et al., in vic\·7 of suggestions that an indictment be returned u.gainst former President Richard M. Nixon questioning the validity of the pardon granted him, I think it proper that I express to you cy viev.·s on this subject to dispel any thought that there may be some relation betHeen my resignation and that issue.

As you realize, one of my responsibilities, not only as an officer of the court, but as a prosecutor as well, is not to take a position in which I lack faith or v:hich my judgment dictates is not supported by probable cause. The provision in the Constitution investing the President \'lith the right to grant pardons, and the recognition by the United States Supreme Court that a pardon may be granted prior to the filing of charges are so clear, in my opinion, as not to admit of doubt. Philip Lacovara, then Counsel to the Special Prosecutor, by \\Tri tten memorandur:-t on file in this office, came to the same conclusion, pointing out that:

" ••• the pardon pm\rer can be exercised at any time after a federal crime has been comm.i tt:ed and it is not necessary that there be any criminal proceedings pending. In fact, the pardon power has been used frequently to relieve federal offenders of criminal liability and other penalties and disabilities attaching to their offenses even where no criminal proceedings against the individual are contemplated ...

I have also concluded, after thorough study, that there is nothing in the charter and guidelines appertain­ ing to the office of L~e Special Prosecutor that impairs or curtails the President's free exercise of the constitutional right of pardon. I was co-architect along with Acting Attoiney General Robert Bork, o~ the provisions so~e theorists nm~ point to as inhibiting the constitutional pardoning powe r of the President. The additional safeguards of

independence on \·lhich I insisted and \vhich Hr. Bork 1 on

fon:1cr President Nixon's authority 1 Has willing to grant were solely for purposes of limiting the grounds on which my dischurge could be based u.nu not for the purpose o:: enlarging on the jurisdiction of the Special Prosecutor. - 3 -·

Hearings held by the Senate Judiciary Committee ~~bsequcnt to my appointraent m~ke it clear that my ~prisdiction as Special Prosecutor was to be no g~fferent from that possessed by my predecessor. There \-las considerable concern expressed by §pme Senators that Acting .l'.ttorney General Dork, by ~ppplemental order, inadvertently had· limited the 1~isdiction that previously existed. 'l'he hearings fp;I.ly developed the concept that the thrust o: the fl~\., provisions giving me the aid of the Congressional '' mmsensus" 90mmi ttee \vere to insulate me fro:n ground­ l~$S efforts to terminate my employment or to limit the jurisdiction that existed. It \'las made clear, h9~·lever, that there \~·as no "redefining" of the juris­ Q~9tion of the Special Prosecutor as it existed fro~ th~ beginning. There emerged from these hearings the dcfini te understanding that in no sense \·lere the iH~¢Ij.. tional provisions inserted in the Special Prosecl.ltor 1 s (iJ'Htrter for the purpose of either enlarging or diminish­ !ng his jurisdiction. I did stress, as I argued in the fl\iP~eme Court in U. s. v. Ni:>:on, that I \vas given t."le V§~bal assurance that I could bring suit against the p~~sident to enforce subpoena rights, a point upheld ~y the Court. This, of course, has no bearil'!g on the p§.qioning po\·ler . • : I cannot escape the conclusion, therefore, that :aQ9itional provisions to the Charter do not subordinate th~ constitutional pardoning pO\ver to the Special f}Jpsecutor's jurisdictional rights. For me nO\v to @€mtend othenvise \·lOuld not only be contrary to the int~rpretation agreed upon in Congressional hearings · it p.lso '''ould ·be, on my part, intellectually dishonest.

'T)'lus, in the light of these conclusions, for r.1e t~ procure an indictr..ent of Richard H. Nixon for the §Ql~ purpose of generating a purported court test on th§ legality of the pardon, \·10uld constitute a spurious ~}Jp9eeding in ~vhich I had no faith; in fact, it would be tantamount to unprofessional conduct and violative cf ~ ~esponsibility as prosecutor and officer of the court. -

- 4 -

Perhaps one of the nore important functions yet to be discharged relates to our final report. It is contemplated that this report Hill be as all­ encompassing as the authority granted this office permits, consistent with the prosecutorial function as delineated by the American Bar Association Standa::!:'ds for Criminal Justice. While this report will be cast in final form subsequent to my term as Special Prosecutor, I '.;ill be available to the authors for such contributions and consultations as they deem advantageous. You are m.,rare, of course, of the position this office has taken regarding access to forrr~er President Nixon•s Khite House ~aterials for all remaining investigations and prosecutions. Legislation now pend­ ing, if enacted, \·lill solve the problem. If not enacted, I shall continue to be available, to '\'hatever £:xtent ro.y successor desires, for counseling on reaching a solution to this problem so that all relevant materials \·lill be forthcoming. Hy Deputy, Henry Ruth, and n:ost of the ot..l}er members of the sta::':f have \..:orked together since the creation of the office. Nr. Ruth has a familiarity \·:i th all reatters stil~ under investigation as well as these still to be tried. He has been in charge of all "milk fund" matters, in vie'.'l of my recusal. I trust that you will not rr~nd my offering the suggestion that he be ·given consideration to serve as my successor, thus permitting the unfinished matters to continue without interruption. Sincerely, lL'-4.-i'./'- ~w~~· LEON JA\·mRSKI Special Prosecutor

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Wedneaday, Oct. 16, 1974

~------''Tho Jlellt·l'reJn&red Caso" . The Pardon of Nixon The special prosecutor s11.ld that evidence to be presented during the current Water· gate trial w111 further enmesh the former Was Timely, Legal, President ln the cover-up. Mr. Jaworski, who won't be participating In the prosecu· . j awors ki Believes Uon, called lt "the best-prepared case I've been associated with." • • • Mr. Jaworski's attitude about the contro­ .He Says Nixon's A~cepta.nce versial pardon rests on the assumption drawn from an early Ford news conference Clearly Shows His Guilt that President Ford always intended to par· And :More Evidence Is Due don Mr. Nixon eventually. ·Thus, to Mr. Ja· worskl, all that is At issue is the timing of the pardon. , By KAREN J. ELLIOTT Mr. Jaworski Insists that If Mr. Nixon 1 · Sto!l Reporter of THE 'VALL STREET JOURNAL case had been allowed to proceed to indict• WASHINGTON-Special Watergate Pros· ment and trial, the public would have ecutor Leon Jaworski sees nothing wrong learned nothing more about the former with President Ford's decision last month to President's role than wlll co!lle out ln the pardon Richard Nixon. 1 trial of his former aides. "It's a mistake .to Mr; Jaworski, talking publicly about,the believe there would have been more evl· controversy for the first time, concedes that dence for the public if he had been tried," the pardon prevented an Indictment and ·I the special prosecutor said. trial of Mr. Nixon. But he believes that auf· "If he had been pilrdoned after Indict· icient evidence has, or soon will, become ment, the public would have no new infor· public to show conclusively that the former ; Imation. If he had gone to trial, h& could President was guilty of obstruction of jus; · 'have Invoked his Fifth Amendment guaran· tlce. · · · · t tees against self·lncrimination, pleaded nolo 1 ''The evidence will show he's guilty, ju!!t contendere, or even pleaded ~llty, and w! as much as a guUty plea," the special prose· 'wouldn't have learned any new details, · Mr. Jaworski said. · I cutor declared during an Interview yester· The special prosecutor wouldn't aay day ln his sparsely furnished office here. ,. Next week, Mr. Jaworski is leaving the job · whether he would have prosecuted the for:· he lms held for 11 months and ls returning . mer President if Mr. Ford hadn't pardoned_. to Houston to resume the practice of law.· hlm: "Nothing ls served by talking aboUt : The speciaJ prosecutor believes, further· · hypothetical situations now," he declared: ·. ore, that both the offering of a pardon and But Mr. Jaworski said that if the former Mr. Nixon's acceptance of it clearly signify · President had been charged, hls t~l " hlsguUt: . wouldn't have come for many months. "We • "A pardon isn't just a beauWul docu· gave no consideration to doing an~ ; ment to frame and liang on the wall. You with the former President until at.ter th•., are offered a pardon only because it is be· cover-up jury was sequestered," he said. ' · ·: lieved you can be charged and convicted. A major task stlll facing the special pros·_ • You accept it only if you want to be ecutlon force ls a report to Congress on th!t." .: cleared." Nixon Investigation and on other aspects of. ~ An. All·Out Defen~e . the Watergate case. That r~port will ei~. '1 ._Mr. Jaworski's attitude about the pardon elude - much evidence against the fornier has been a subject of ·intense speculation President unless Congress specifically au··; here for weeks. Many have assumed that thorizes its inclusion. Without such author·.~ .; the special prosecutor, who• has gained a . ity, Mr. Jaworski believes, a prosecutor.. reputation in Washington for toughness and ; can't ethically disclose evidence against a integrity, objected to the decision. It even man who hasn't been charged; Mr. Jawor···· has been suggested in recent days that hls ski has asked Congress for authority tO.' supposed anger over the pardon is what , include such material in the report. prompted him to resign his post. , "We can paint a very full picture of Mr.· In fact, his statements' yesterday · Nixon's role ln obstructing justice; . but th!! amount to an all-out defense of the most ; difficulty arises ln other areas where we controversial aspect ot the pardon: its tlm· : didn't bring charges," he said. The Wate~· ing prior to a Nixon indictment and trial. , gate grand jury named Mr. Nixon as an un· Thus, the Jaworski position ·Could have sig· . Indicted coconspirator in the obstruction .o( nificant political benefit for President Ford, justice for which his former aides are being whose popularity with the public ·has tried. dropped dramatically since he granted the Mr. Jaworski Is turning philosophical as, pardon. · he prepares to leave for·a rest at his Texas· The special prosecutor said he has kept ranch, where he will "watch the deer and · silent on the pardon and on Mr. Nixon's role birds and think about sOmething besides· in the · Watergate Watergate for· the first time in a year:•:, cover-up for two rea· Watergate, he believes, has shown that the·: sons : He wanted to American governmenta~ system worlui: wait until a jury was "Here are top men In government who · chosen and seques· haven't been '!!pared from investigation, ex::·: tered for the trial of posure and conviction," he said. five of Mr. Nixon's former top aides, But he Isn't sorry 'to be leaving. "The-· and he wanted to whole thing ls a tragedy," he said. "And I ' walt until he had an· don't get any satisfaction from being iri­ nounced his reslgna· volved ln a national tragedy." •~ tion. All that - has t~ ~ · happened, and now ' , Mr. Jaworski is talk· lng: There will be. more newspaper in· tervlews, a n d on Sunday he is ached· · uled to appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" program. Mr. Jaworski denies that the pardon prompted his resignation. He said ln the ln· tervlew yesterday that ho decided three weeks ago to resign because he had com· pleted what he has always considered to be his primary task- outllnlng Mr. Nixon's role in the cover-up. . 1 His own depariUr!J. he said, won't slow the Investigations that the prosecutor's of· flee Ill conducting Into the mllk-rund scandal . and Into lilt-gal politicAl contributions by corporations. Action 111 f'Xpocted 1100n agalnat other compames, he aald.

THE WHITE .HOUSE

WASHINGTON

October 14, 1974

MEMORANDUM FOR: PHIL BUCHEN

FROM: KEN LAZAR US ·~

SUBJECT: House Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing On Pardon: Anticipated Questions For The President.

Set forth below are a nu.mber of questions which I anticipate .may be raised at the hearing on Thursday and so.me rather cryptic nqtes which may be of assistance to you in this regard. Hopefully, the President will have the opportunity to consider these and all other questions which .may be anticipated prior to his appearance.

I. QUESTIONS OF LAW

A. Basis of the Pardon Power

1. What is the Constitutional basis of the President's pardoning power?

11 Article II, section 2, cl. 1: ••• and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. 11

2. Who has the power to pardon and is the exercise of that pow.er exclusive?

a. Only the President may exercise the power to pard~n.

(1) Ex Parte Wells, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 307 (1855): at p. 309 11 Under this power, the President has granted reprieves and pardons since the commence­ ment of the present government .•• No statute has ever been passed regulating it in cases of conviction by the civil authorities. In such cases, the President has acted exclusively under the power as it is expressed in the constitution. 11 - 2 -

(2) Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 380 (1867): "This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions. 11

(3) Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 120 {1924): "The Executive can reprieve or pardon all offenses • conditionally or absolutely, and this without modification or regulation by Congress. 11

(4) The Laura, 114 U.S. 411, 414 (1885): The President's

11 • • • constitutional power in these respects cannot be interrupted, abridged, or limited by any legis­ lative enactment. 11

(5) See also, United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128 (1872) and Knote v. United States, 95 U.S. 149 (1877), both stating that the President has the power to grant a full pardon.

(6) Thompson v. Duehay, 217 Fe(~. 484, 487 (W. D. Wash. 1914) affd. 223 Fed. 305 (9th Cir. 1915); Bozel v. United States, 139 F. 2d 153 {6th Cir. 1943); United States v. Kawkita, 108 F. Supp. 627 {S.D. Cal. 1952); United States v. Jenkins, 141 F. Supp. 499 (S.D. Ga. 1956).

11 (7) 20 Op. A. G. 668 (1893), stating that ••• the pardoning power of the President is absolute, and is not a subject of legislative control. 11 41 Op. A. G. 251 (1955), stating "Nor do I believe that the parole laws and regulations can be regarded as a limitation upon the President• s pardoning power vested in him by the Constitution. The books are replete with statements that Congress can neither control nor regulate the action of the President in this regard. 11 At p. 254. b. May the President delegate his power to pardon to other officials or agencies within the Executive Branch? - 3 -

(1) In light of the above cases, it would appear that the power to pardon is nondelegable. To support this premise, 19 Op. A. G. 106 (1888) states that "This grant of power to pardon offenses against the United States to the President alone forbids the exercise of it by any one else ••• But it is to be presumed Congress passed law {permitting an officer to pardon after general court-martial) in subservience to and not in violation of the Constitution. 11 Since the ability to remit punishment was limited solely to punishment and not to the offense itself, which is the essential object of a pardon, the President's pardoning power was not impinged. The Opinion went on to state, however, "But when the law has finally pronouncec!_its judg!£ent /and an offense has been established/, it /Congres@./ could not and did not intend to grant the power to pardon the offense against the United States. 11 At p. 108 11!£ the power of the officer to pardon existed at any time after the final judgment, and could be exercised after the offender had paid a large '-...... part of the penalty of the law, he might be again prosecuted, convicted, and twice punished for the same offense. 11 At p. 109.

{2) But see dictum in Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 U.S. 9 (1950) which states that-th~ ."power of executive clemency has traditionally rested in governors or the President, although some of that power is often delegated to agencies such as pardon or parole boards. Seldom has this power of executive clemency been subjected to review by the courts. 11

(3) I believe that 41 Op. A. G. 251 (1955) dis poses of the issue that the parole statutes in any measure detract from the President's pardoning power. Viewing the dictum stated above as relating solely to the act of parole, it is clear that judicial review of the decision to parole has been denied the courts. c. Does the Congress have any power to pardon?

(1) From a· reading of the De bates of the Constitutional Convention, it appears that the Framers of the Consti­ tution specifically omitted the Congress from participation in the exercise of the President's pardoning power. By a vote of 1 to 8 the following clause including the Senate - 4 -

in the t=-articir--ation of the Executive's pardoning power was omitted: '' , ... power to grant reprieves •.• and pardons with consent of the Senate." (emphasis supplied) 2 M. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 419 (1937).

In one of the debates, Rufus King of Massachusetts made the following observation: "It would be inconsistent with the constituti<2__nal separation .•• of powers to let the prerogative Lof pardon/ to be exercised by the legis­ lature -- a legislative body is utterly unfit for the purpose. They are governed too much by the passions of the moment. 11 2 M. Farrand, supra, at p. 626.

(2) The power to pardon has been committed exclusively by the Constitution to the President of the United States. See Ex Parte Wells, supra; Ex Parte Garland, supra; Ex Parte Grossman, supra.

(3) In 22 Op. A. G. 36 (1898), it is stated that:

"The power thus conferred is unlimited with the ex­ ception stated (except in cases of impeachment}. It extends to every offense known to the law, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, ,....~,.- or alter conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign pre- rogative of .mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions. 11

(4) Cases of general grants of amnesty, or immunity from prosecution can be distinguished from the exercise of the pardoning power reposed exclusively in the President.

In Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896), the Court held that a statute granting witnesses testifying before the Interstate Commerce Commission im.munity from prose­ cution was virtually a grant of amnesty and therefore a witness could not be excused from testifying on the ground that he might incriminate himself. The granting of immunity to witnesses before prosecution on a quid ..I2LQ 9..£2_ basis seems readily di3tinguishable from the grace concept intrin:::ic. in arnncsty. Inununity statutes •

- 5 -

have the 1 imited and special pur pose of obviating the constitutional privilege against self-imcrimination. Brown should not be read as support for the proposition that Congress can pass a general amnesty statute which in effect is an exercise of the pardoning power. See distinction discussed in Burdick v. United States, 236 u.s. 79, 94-95 (1915).

In The Laura, 114 U.S. 411 (1885), the Supreme Court upheld the remission of a fine by the Secretary of the Treasury acting pursuant to Congressional authorization. the Court observed that the President's power to pardon offenses and remit penalties is not exclusive, the case indicates that the statutory authority accorded the Secretary of the Treasury was placed wholly within his discretion and that a remission could not have occurred without his concurrence. Under such circu.ms tances, the degree of Congressional encroachment on the Executive's power to pardon was minimal, given the predominant role accorded Executive discretion by the statute. L,.

d. Does the judicial branch have the power to Rardon?

(1) This issue has been addressed by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte United States, 242 U.S. 27 (1916). In this case, tlie Court held that courts possess the right to impose punishment provided by law. But this right affords no ground for the contention that " ••• the power to enforce begets inherently a discretion to permanently refuse to do so. Authority to define and fix punishment is legis­ lative and includes the right to bring within judicial discretion in advance elements of consideration which would be otherwise beyond the scope of judicial authority; but that the right to relieve from the punishment, fixed by law, belongs to the executive department. 11

3. Must the recipient of an offer of pardon accept it?

a. Yes, without acceptance, an offer of pardon lapses.

(l) United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 150 (1833) which states that a pardon is a 11 deed 11 to the validity of which delivery is essential and is not complete without acceptance. ....i - 6 - "'), J~ ... • l... ~ (2) Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), holding that acceptance is essential to a pardon's validity.

(3) Biddle v. Perovich, 274 U.S. 480, 486 (1927), dis­ tinguishes a comrnutation which needs no acceptance from a pardon which does.

(4) 11 Op. A. G. 227 (1865) at p. 230 states that "After the pardon has been accepted, it becomes a valid act~ and the person receiving it is entitled to all its benefits. " See also 41 Op. A. G. 251, 254-258 (1955).

(5) In re DePuy, 7 Fed. Cas. 507 (Cas. No. 3814, 1869); Ex Parte Perovich, 9 F. 2d 124 (D. Kan. 1925).

4. Does acceptance of a pardon imply an admission of guilt?

a. Yes.

b. 6 Op. A. G. 20 (1853) states that a pardon before trial and conviction is proper " ..• because the act of clemency and grace is applied to the crime itself, not to the mere formal proof of the crime by process of law. But there must be satisfactory evidence of some kind as to the guilt of the party. And it has been held unwise and inexpedient, as a general rule, to interpose the pardoning power in anticipation of trial and condemnation, although particular circumstances .may exist to justify such an exceptional act on the part of the President. Mr. Wirt's opinion, March 30~ 1820; Mr. Berrien's opinion, October 12, 1829; Mr. Taney's opinion, December 28, 1831." 6 Op. A. G. at 21.

11 Op. A. G. 227, 228 (1865) states that "There can be no pardon where there is no actual or imputed guilt. The acceptance of a pardon is a confession of guilt, or of the existence of a state of facts from which a judgment of guilt would follow. "

Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 70 (1915) states that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. But legislative immunity has no such imputation or confession, being the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of the witnesses'; compelled testimony.

5. May a pardon be void ab initio?

a. Yes. - 7 -

b. 11 Op. A. G. 227 at 229 (1865) states that "A pardon procured by fraud or for a fraudulent purpose, upon the suppression of the truth or the suggestion of falsehood, is void. It is a deed of mercy given without other fee or reward than the good faith, truth and repentance of the culprit. On the other hand, as an act of grace freely given, when obtained without falsehood, fraud, and for no fraudulent use, it should be liberally construed in favor of the repentent offender. 11

6. May the President grant a pardon without first investigating the facts upon which the pardon operates to relieve an individual from punishment?

a. Yes.

b. 1 Op. A. G. 359 (1820) stating with respect to the suggestion that the President must either grant a new trial because of the petitioners' submission of new facts upon which to base the pardon or to accept without question the explanation of the petitioners that "I do not think that the power of pardon either requires or authorizes him to do the one or the other of these things; but that, on the contrary, tq.~do either would be an abuse of that power. 11 Distinguish that right to do something from the judgment whether something which one has tha right to do should be done in a particular manner.

B. Form of the Pardon

I. Must a pardon have a particular form or designation?

a. Yes.

b. ExParteWells, 59U.S. (18How.)307, 310(1855) • "Such a thing as a pardon without a designation of its kind is not known in the law. Time out of mind, in the earliest books of the English law, every pardon has its particular denomination. They are general, special, or particular, conditional or absolute, statutory, not necessary in son1e cases, and in sotne grantable of course. 11

c. It appears that there is a difference between a full and un­ conditional pardon for an offense which has been specified in the prearnble of the pardon statement, and a "general" pardon. - 8 -

See Stetler's Case, 22 Fed. Cas. {Cas. No. 13, 380, 1852) where the Court distinguished between a full and unconditional pardon, which was there involved, and a general pardon. The Court held that the pardon which was full and unconditional was valid for the offense recited in the preamble but that this was not a general pardon for other crimes.

8 Op. A. G. 281 (1857) also made s_?ecific reference to the fact that the form of the pardon was significant. As an example, the Opinion stated "a 'general' pardon restores the competency of a party as a witness but that effect may not follow a special remission merely of the residue of a sentence i.e., commutation. 11

d. President Ford referred to Mr. Nixon's pardon as "full, free and absolute" and covering the period of his term in office.

2. Must the form of the pardon include a statement which indicates the intent of the President with respect to the offenses encompassed by the pardon? .~~

a. Stetler's Case, supra, states that the "effect of the preamble Lof the pardon sta te1nen_U reciting a single offense limits the general words of the grant of pardon. 11

b. Where the scope of the pardon is ambiguous, 11 Op. A. G. 227 at 229 (1865) suggests that since the pardon is essentially an act of grace, "when obtained without falsehood, fraud, and for no fraudulent use, it should be liberally construed in favor of the repentent offender." . 3. If there is any ambiguity regarding the President's intent in specifying the offenses which are the subject of the pardon, may he be required to specify his intent?

a. No.

b. So long as the offenses covered or which may be covered are in some tnanner treated by the terms of the pardon, i.e., "during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974, II

c. Sornewhat bearinF on this consideration is the comment in 11 Op. A. G. 227~ 232-233 (1865) which sugf?est.s that it would be proper for the judiciary to detern1111C In each •

- 9 -

particular case the adequacy of the repicients' acceptance of the terms of a pardon .. Apparently, ambiguity with respect to acceptance is a subject of judicial determination, permitting a court to review the expression of intent in a pardon as the way of gauging the adequacy of the acceptance.

C. Timing of the Pardon

1. May a pardon precede indictment and conviction?

a. Yes.

b. During the debates of the Constitutional Convention, a motion was made to insert the words ''after conviction" after the words "reprieves and pardons". Mr. Ja.mes Wilson of Pennsylvania objected to this proposal on the grounds that "pardon before conviction might be necessary in order to obtain the testimony of accomplices." The motion was then L .. withdrawn. 2 M. Farrand, supra, at 422, 426.

c. 6 Op. A. G. 20~ 21 (1853) permits the offer of a pardon before 11 trial and conviction ••• because the act of clemency and grace i~ applied to the crime itself, not to the mere formal proof of the crime by process of law. 11

d. Ex Parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1866) states that the pardoning power may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.

e. 8 Op. A. G. 281 (1857) states ''He may pardon before trial and conviction. He may pardon at any time either anterior to prosecution or pending the same or subsequent to the executions -- subject in the latter case only to the limits of legal, moral, or physical possibilities.

f. Stetler's Case, supra, states that "the President has consti­ tutional authority to pardon an offense so long as any of its consequences remain. 11

2. May a pardon include offenses which have neither been discovered, nor listed in the pardon statement at the time of its issuance?

a. Yes. - 10 -

b. If the pardon statement designates that the pardon will be general or if by its terms the pardon states that it includes "all'' offenses which have been committed by the recipient, knowledge of the precise types of crimes involved is irrele­ vant. A pardon is essentially directed to the nullification of the legal consequences flowing from an offense. Such an effect is not dependent on knowledge or enumeration of the offenses involved. 22 Op. A. G. 36 (1898) Since the Congress cannot limit the President's power to pardon, ''the inquiry arises as to the effect and operation of a pardon, and on this point all the authorities concur. A pardon reaches both punishment pre scribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full it releases punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense. 11

D. Challenge and Review of a Pardon ~~~"'

1. Who has standing to challenge the pardon? I' a. The President I lr~·- Matter of DePuy, 7 Fed. Case. No. 3814 (1869) states that , the President has the right to arrest a pardon, but only I before it has been delivered and accepted by the grantee. I I b. Leon Jawo:rski, Special Prosecutor, has standing to challenge the pardon. Ordinarily, of course, a prosecutor is subject to the President's control, so the basis of his challenge would not be that the incumbent President acted improperly. But here, the understanding between the Department of Justice, the President and the Special Prosecutor contained in Order No. 551-73 (Nov. 2, 1973), 38 Fed. Reg. 30738, provided

''that the President will not exercise his constitutional powers to effect the discharge of the Special Prosecutor or to limit the independence that he is hereby- given. 11 The President further agreed not to remove him from. his duties except for extraordinary ilnproprieties on his part and without the President's first consulting the majority and the minority leaders and chairmen and ranking minority members of the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Representa­ tives and ascertaining that their consensus is· in accord with his proposed action.'' - 11 -

Note the decision in Nader v. Bork, __ F. Supp. __ (D. D. C. 1973) 42 L. W. 2262, which apparently does not address the standing question, but did hold that Acting Attorney General Bork' s firing of Special Prosecutor Cox was illegal.

From newspaper reports of September 9, 1974, Mr. Jaworski had decided not to challenge the pardon. New York Times, p. 1 col. 4 states that 11 The special prosecutor 'accepts the decision' •••. 1He thinks it's within the President's power to do it. His feelings is that the President is exercising his lawful power, and he accepts it. 111

The challenge would have to be based on the grounds dis­ cussed above-- notably, fraud in the inducement. There is no Federal case law which will indicate that obtaining it by inducement contrary to public policy (e. g., a "deal11 for L Nixon's resignation) would constitute invalidating fraud. Obviously, however, care should be taken to eliminate any (_ such speculation. It is difficult to argue tha:·£ the pardon violates the agreement with Jaworski. It does not "effect Lhif}} discharge" or "limit his independence 11 or "remove him from his duties. 11 But obviously, questions can be expected on this point.

2. May the President revoke a pardon once it has been accepted?

a. No.

b. In re DePuy, 7 Fed. Cas. 507 (Cas. No. 3814, 1869). In reviewing a pardon by the President, tlle Court stated that "when a pardon is complete there is no power to revoke it, any more than there is power to revoke any other completed act. 11 Once a pardon has been accepted, it becomes a completed act and cannot be revoked.

c. This situation should be distinguished from the case where the pardon is conditional and the recipient fails to fulfill the terms of the condition. See ~ v. Zerbst, 92 F. 2d 362 (5th Cir. 1937). - 12 -

3. Can Congress challenge a pardon?

a. No.

b. United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128, 143, 148 (1872): "Now it is clear that the legislature cannot change the effect of such a pardon any more than the executive can change a law. 11

4. See discussion of fraud as a basis for challenging a pardon, supra at (A)(5) of the outline discussing 11 Op. A. G. 227 (1865).

5. May courts review a grant of a pardon?

a. Yes.

b. Judicial review may not extend to the propriety of the President's exercise of the pardoning power. However, the courts have reviewed such issues as whether the offense pardoned falls within the category of an offense against the United States (Ex Parte Grossman, supra); whether the conditions imposed are valid (i.e., Hoffa v.q'United States (most recent example); Ex Parte Wells, supra; United States v. Klein, supra); whether the grantor of the pardon has the authority to issue the pardon (The Laura, supra; 22 Op. A. G. 36, supra; 19 Op. A. G. 106, supra); whether the terms of the pardon are ambiguous; and whether at the time of the issuance of the pardon the President was consti­ tutionally able to exercise the pardoning power by reason of the Twenty-fifth Amendment.

6. Can a recipient of an invalid pardon claim estoppel if he is prosecuted for an offense covered by a pardon allegedly granted to him?

a. Yes, However, there is no case law on this point.

b. It is reasonable that if in reliance on the grant of a pardon (where the pardon .might be phrased in ambiguous terms), the recipient "waives" his Fifth An"lendment protection against self-incrimination by making incriminating statements, subsequent prosecution would be estopped. The recipient because of his reliance on the pardon in making those state­ ments would effectively be prevented from obtaining a fair trial by an impartial jury, guaranteed him by the Si..xth An1endtnent. - 13

E. Extent of the Pardoning Power

1. Can the pardoning power affect either state criminal jurisdiction or civil liability to third parties?

a. No.

b. (Angle v. Chicago, St. P.M. &0. R. Co., 151 U.S. 1 (1893); Osborn v. United States, 91 U.S. 4 74 (1875). As to third parties (see also 5 Op. A. G. 532 (1852)), stating r'this power of granting pardons does not confer an unlimited power •.•• The power of granting pardons does not extend to the release of the portion of fines, penalties, and for­ feitures which, by United States law, are directed to be dis­ tributed by the individual. Such would deprive individuals of their interests ••• and they would suffer loss."

c. Ex Parte Grossman, supra, at pagE2._ 121 which states "neither in this country nor in England can /a pardon/ interfere with the use of coercive measures to enforce a st11tor 1 s rights. 11

d. Look to the express terms of Article II, Section 2, cl. 1 which limits the power to offenses against the United States.

2. What are offenses against the United States?

a. Ex Parte Grossman, supra

(1) A pardon of the president is meant t::> operate on offenses against the United States as distinguished from offenses against the States.

(2) Offenses against the United States include, but are not limited to, crimes and misde.meanors defined and announced by Congressional acts.

(3) The words of the pardon clause were not meant to exclude therefro.m. comrnon law offenses in "the nature of con­ tempts against the dignity and authority of United States courts.'' Criminal, but not civil, conternpts are subject to pardon.

(4) The term offenses is used in the Constitution in a more comprehensive sense than are the terms "crimes 11 and "crirninal prosecution".

·-.> i ' i \ ''. .,<):-~ r

- 14 -

b. A state felony (i.e., assault and violation of traffic regulations) is not an offense against the United States. In re Bocchiaro, 49 F. Supp. 3 7 (W. D. N.Y. 1943)

c. The pardon power is sufficient to remit a fine imposed on a citizen for contempt for neglecting to serve as a juror. 4 Op. A. G. 317 (1844)

d. The pardon power extends to all penalties and forfeitures, as well as other punishments. 8 Op. A. G. 281 (1857)

e. Proceedings instituted by the United States for punishment of criminal contempt committed by a violation of an in­ junction is an offense against the United States. United States v. Goldman, 2 77 U.S. 229 (1928).

F. Equal Protection Argument

( I. Can others who allegedly have committed the sarn.e offenses as co-conspirators or accomplices sustain a clai.m that they have been denied equal protection when one of their nu.mber has been I pardoned?· (""!'"'-· ;: . a. No. The act of pardoning is essentially an act of executive I grace, specifically directed usually at one particular person. I Moreover, there is no equal protection argument possible where there is a rational basis upon which a distinction can I be made.

Even if equal protection considerations were raised, it is I~ arguable that considerations, other than those strictly legal, may validly distinguish one co-conspirator-from another, i.e., health, position, effect of a trial on the national con­ science and morale, as well as the extent of the recipient's participation.

Since this power is ultimately de signed to function as a stress point in our Constitutional fabric to which no citizen has a right, failure to accord the grace to all involved in a particular offense does not violate equal protection.

2. M<1y the pardon of Mr. Nixon be considered in the sentencing by judges presiding over trials involving Watergate-related offenses?

·;·.~ -~ '. \ .. _) - 15 -

a. Yes. The sentencing power of the judge is wholly dis­ cretionary and subject to very little review so long as the terms of the sentences are within the statutory liri1its.

G. Prospective Application of the Pardoning Power.

l. Can a Presidential pardon be prospective in application to offenses against the United States committed after the offer of the pardon?

a. No. 22 Op. A. G. 36, 39 ( 1898).

H. Effect of Pardon.

l. Can President Nixon refuse to testify in future Watergate trials by claiming his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?

a. No. He has been granted immunity from federal criminal prosecution. He may refuse to testify on matters which ( would involve State criminal liability since h.e has not been given immunity with respect to State liability. Jaworski could give him such immunity.

2. If Nixon testifles at Watergate trials and is shown to have lied under oath and if he is then charged with perjury can he raise President Ford's pardon as a bar to liability for perjury? No. A pardon is limited in this case to cri.me s completed as of the date of Mr. Nixon's resignation, August 9, 1974.

3. Does Nbwn face the possibility of criminal tax liability for tax fraud in California? Yes.

4. Would Nixon be subject to civil suits? Yes.

I. Executive Privilege: Congressional Demands.

l. How does Executive Privilege operate in response to Congrcs sional demands?

Congressional demands for material 1nay be grouped into four categories: - 16 -

a. Some Presidents have acknowledged that a demand for rnaterial pursuant to -~.n impeachrnent inquiry would re- quire production for any and all executive material. See Washington•s statement, 5 Annals of Congress 710-12 (1796).

b. Particularized Congressional de.mands for .materials pursuant to a legislative mission may be rejected on the basis of Executive Privilege where it is deemed by the President that the production of such material would be detrimental to the functioning of the Executive Branch.

c. Particularized Congressional demands for sensitive .materials have at times been met with certain restrictions on access, e. g., examination by only the Chairman and ranking Republicans on a committee. d. Non- particularized claims for general access with no IL compelling indication of need are routinely rejected. l ,. 2. Does a for.mer President have the authority to in'\Ybke Executive Privilege for .materials or conversations arising during his I Presidency? \r~ Yes. The rationale behind the privilege and the interest it serves compels an affir.mative response. The invocation of Executive Privilege is not so much to protect the content of the particular I discussions detnanded as it is to protect the expectation of con­ fidentiality which enables future discussions to be free and frank. Principle recognized as early as 1846. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. IV, 433-34.

Former President Truman in 1953, having returned to public life, asserted privilege in response to House committee subpoena concerning matters which transpired while he was in office. The House com.mittee accepted the letter and did not attempt to enforce the subpoena.

3. Docs the Congress itself protect a sphere of confidentiality in its internal deliberations?

Yes. At least four precedents can be given in this regard.

a. In 1962, certain staff members of the Senate Rackets Com.rnittee · were allowed to tc sti.fy in a criminal proceeding against Jimmy Hoffa but they wen~ forbidden frorn Jnaking available - 17 -

any documents in the hands of the Senate and from testifying about information that they gained while employed in the Senate. 108 Cong. Rec. 3626 (1962). In explaining the resolution to the Senate, Senator McClellan said in part: "The Senate- recognizes it has certain privileges as a separate and distinct branch of government which it wishes to protect.".I_g_. at 3627.

b. In 1970, the House Committee on Armed Services refused to comply with a request from counsel for Lieutenant William Calley for the production of testimony given to the committee by Calley in closed session. The chairman of the 11 committee, Rep. Hebert, indicated that ••• only Congress can direct the disclosure of legislative records. 11 See 116 Cong. Rec. 37652 (1970).

c. In 1972, the United States Senate by resolution refused a judicial subpoena for documentary evidence in the criminal case of United States v. Brewster, then pending in the D. C. District Court. 118 Cong. Rec. 766 (1972):~

d. In 1974, the Senate passed a resolution allowing a Senate staff member to testify in a criminal proceeding but limited 11 the sco.pe of the testimony by providing that ••• he shall respectfully decline to provide information concerning any and all other matters that may be based on knowledge acquired by him in his official capacity ..• 11 S. Res. 338, passed June 12, 1974.

II. QUESTIONS OF FACT

A. IntroC:uctory Notes: This hearing presents a real opportunity for the President. At the same time, however the open-ended nature of the factual inquiry must be limited to ensure a responsible search for the truth regarding the pardon. Although the President need not assume a defensive posture, potential for political mischief must be minimized.

1. Ground Rules. The ground rules which have been agreed upon \vith the subcommittee may be summarized as follows: '

- 18 -

a. . Opening Statement. No time limitations but statement should be responsive to each of the formal inquiries raised by H. Res. 1367 and H. Res. 1370.

b. Scope of Inquiry. The understanding has been reached that the inquiry shall be limited by the scope of the two formal resolutions of inquiry.

c: Time Limitations. Each of the nine members sitting with the subcommittee shall have the · opportunity to question the President for two periods of five minutes each. Thus, there will be a total of 90 minutes of questioning.

d. Television. Consent has been given to live television coverage of the hearing.

2. Thoughts on ground rules. In my op1n1on, further consideration should be given to the ground rules in the following respects:

a. Time Limits. If possible, the agreement reached on the period for questioning should be reopened and substantially reduced. Perhaps, a total of I /2 hour to be controlled by and divideil between the chairman and ranking Republican. Alternatively, only 5 minutes per member might be allowed for a total of 45 minutes. Ninety minutes is simply too long.

b. Order of questioning. The order of questioning should alternate fro.m De1nocrat to Republican and form. senior to junior. The De.mocrats should not be allowed to exhaust their time prior to the allotment of. time to the Republicans.

c. Nixon-GSA Agreement. It should be clearly understood that the tapes agreement is beyond the scope of this inquiry, except to the extent that it might impact upon the grant of the pardon.

d. Prior Executive's Discussions and Materials which are presumptively pri vHeged. It should be under stood that President Ford will not infringe UFOn any claim of Executive Privilege which former President Ni.,con .may want to assert with regard to n1aterials or conversations arising prior to

:,, . ,; ···'•t...,·;. (

- 1 ') -

August 9th. This position can be substantially strengthened by a letter to Jack Miller, counsel to the former President, inquiring as to whether he intends to assert a privilege on behalf of the former President Assuming Miller will not consent to any waiver, documentation of this posi~ion will then be available.

e. Presumptively Privileged Discussions and lvfaterials Arising after August qth Two ground rules should be established in this regard: ( (l) President Ford will not make available members of the ·white House staff for further examination on the subject of the pardon; and

(2) Formal requests or demands for documents of the ! Ford Presidency will not be complied with unless of L ... a public nature -- this is not to say, however, that such materials may not be made available pursuant to informal requests by the committee. The point in this latter regard is that release in this context is a Presidential prerogative . • f. Role of the Chairman. Chairman Hungate should assume the following responsibilities:

- (l) Channel all appropriate informal requests for materials to the White House;

( (2) Strictly enforce time limitations a:qd ground rules on relevancy and privilege; and

(3) Rule clearly repetitious questions out of order.

3. Need For Certainty. If equitable ground rules for this hearing cannot be firmly established prior to Wednesday, the President might give thought to postponing his appearance until an agreement reflecting a good faith effort on both sides can be reached.

PRESS CO!:FJ~RE;JCE l!O. 1

of the

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

2 : 3 0 P . r1. EDT August 28, 1974 vlednesday

In the East Room At the Hhite House Washington, D.C.

THE PRESIDENT: Please sit down. Good afternoon.

At the outset, I have a very important and a very serious announcement. There was a little confusion about the date of this press conference. My wife, Betty, had scheduled her first press conference for the same day. Obviously, I had scheduled my first press conference for this occasion. So, Betty's was postponed.

We worked this out between us in a calm and orderly way. She will postpone her press conference until next week, and until then, I will be making my own breakfast, my own lunch and my own dinner. (Laughter)

Helen.

QUESTION: Mr. President, aside from vhe Special Prosecutor's role, do you agree with the Bar Association that the law applies equally to all men, or do you agree with Govern~r Rockefeller that former President Nixon should have immunity from prosecution, and specifically, would you use your pardon authority,if necessary?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say at the outset that I made a statement in this room in the few moments after the swearing-in, and on that occasion I said the following: That I had hoped that our former President, who brought peace to millions, would find it for himself.

Now, the expression made by Governor Rockefeller, I think, coincides with the general view and the point of view of the American people. I subscribe to that point of view. But let me ad~ in the last ten days or two weeks I have asked for prayers for guidance on this very important point.

In this situation, I am the final authority. There have been no charges made, there has been no action by the courts, there has been no action by any jury, and until any legal process has been undertaken, I think it is unwise and untimely for me to make az:y commitment.

MORE Page 2

Q Mr. President, you have been in office 19 days now, and already so~e of your naturally conservative ullies are grumbling th~t you are ~oving too far to the left. Does this trouble you?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't think I have deviated from my basic philosophy nor have I deviated from what I think is the right action. I have selected an outstanding person to be the Vice President. I have made a decision concerning amnesty, which I think is right and proper -­ no amnesty, no revenge -- and that individuals who have violated either the draft laws or have evaded Selective . Service or deserted can earn their w~y, or work their way, back. I don't think these are views that fall in the political spectrum right or left.

I intend to make the same kind of judgments in other matters because I think they are right and I think they are for the good of the country.

Q Mr. President, may I follow that with one more example, possibly, that is there is a report the Administration is considering a $4 billion public works program in case the inflation rate gets higher than it is, say six percent. Is that under consideration?

THE PRESIDENT: I think most of you do know that we have a public service employment program on the statute books which is funded right today, not for any major program,but to take care of those areas in our country where there are limited areas of unemployment caused by the energy crisis or any other reason.

There is a•recommendation from some of my advisers saying that if the economy gets any more serious, that this ought to be a program, a broader, more expensive public service program. We will approach this problem t-7i th compassion and action if there is a need for it.

Q Si~, two political questions" Do you definitely plan to run for President in 1976, and if so, would you choose Governor Rockefeller as your running mate, or would you leave that choice up to the Convention's free choice?

THE PRESIDENT: I will repeat what has been said on my behalf, that I will probably be a candidate in 1976. I think Governor Rockefeller and myself are a good team, but of course, the final judgment in this matter will be that of the delegates to the national Convention.

MORE Page 2

Q Mr. President, you have been 1n office 19 days now, and already so~e of your naturally conservative allies are grumbling th~t you are ~oving too far to the left. "'-- Does this trouble you?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't think I have deviated from my basic philosophy nor have I deviated from what I think is the right acticn. I have selected an outstanding person to be the Vice President. I have made a decision concerning amnesty, which I think is right and proper -­ no amnesty, no revenge -- and that individuals who have violated either the draft laws or have evaded Selective . Service or deserted can earn their w~y, or work their way, back. I don't think these are views that fall in the political spectrum right or left.

I intend to make the same kind of judgments in other matters because I think they are right and I think they are for the good of the country.

Q Mr. President, may I follow that -vlith one more example, possibly, that is there is a report the Administration is considering a $4 billion public works program in case the inflation rate gets higher than it is, say six percent. Is that under consideration?

THE PRESIDENT: I think most of you do know that we have a public service employment program on the statute books which is funded right today, not for any major program,but to take care of those areas in our country where there are limited areas of unemployment caused by the energy crisis or any other reason.

There is a•recommendation from some of my advisers saying that if the economy gets any more serious, that this ought to be a program, a broader, more expensive public service program. We will approach this problem "t-7i th compassion and action if there is a need for it.

Q Sir, two political questions. Do you definitely plan to run for President in 1976, and if so, would you choose Governor Rockefeller as your running mate, or would you leave that choice up to the Convention's free choice?

THE PRESIDENT: I will repeat what has been said on my behalf, that I will probably be a candidate in 1976. I think Governor Rockefeller and myself are a good team, but of course, the final judgment in this matter will be that of the delegates to the national Convention.

MORE QUESTION: May I just follow up on Helen's question: Arc you saying, sir, that the option of a ''--- pardon for former President Nixon is still an option that you will consider,depending on what the courts will do.

THE PRESIDENT: Of course, I make the final deci­ sion. And unt11 it gets to me,I make no commitment one Hay or another. But I do have the right as President of the United States to make that decision.

QUESTION: And you are not ruling it out?

THE PRESIDENT: I am not ruling it out. It 1s an option and a proper option for any President.

QUESTION: Do you feel the Special Prosecutor can in good conscience pursue cases against former top Nixon aides as long as there is the possibility that the former President may not also be pursued in the courts?

THE PRESIDENT! I think the Special Prosecutor, Mr. Jaworski, has an obligation to take whatever action he sees fit in conformity with his oath of office, and that should include any and all individuals.

QUESTION: What do you plan to do as President to see to it that we have no further Watergates?

THE PRESIDENT! Well, I indicated that, one, we would have an open Administration. I will be as candid and as forthright as I possibly can. I will expect any individuals in my Administration to be exactly the same. There will be no tightly controlled operation of the White House staff. I have a policy of seeking advice from a number of top members of my staff. There will be no one person, nor any limited number of individuals, who make decisions. I will make the decisions and take the blame for them or whatever benefit might be the case.

I said in one of my speeches after the s~earing in, there would be no illegal wiretaps or there would be none of the other things that to a degree helped to precipitate the Watergate crisis.

QUESTION: Do you plan to set up a code of ethics for the Executive Branch?

THE PRESIDENT: The code of ethics that will be followed t.vill be the example that I set.

MORE Page L~

QUESTION: Mr. President, do you have any plans noH for ir:uncc.liate steps to control and curtail inflation> even before your summit conference on the economy?

THE PRESIDENT: We have announced that as far as fiscal control is concerned, we will spend less in the Federal G6vernment in the current fiscal year than $300 billion. That is a reduction of $5 billion 500 million at a minimum.

This, I think, will have two effects: Number one, it will be substantively beneficial, it will make our borroHing from the money market less, freeing more money for housing, for the utilities to borrow, and in addition, I think it will convince people who might have some doubts that we mean business.

But in the meantime, we are collecting other ideas from labor, from management, from agriculture, from a wide variety of the segments of our population to see if they have any better ideas for us to win the battle against inflation.

QUESTION: Mr. President, as you know, a number of people have questioned your opposition to a return to wage and price controls. Gardiner Ackley, a University of Michigan economist that you have listened to in the past, recently testified before Congress that if we are really frightened about inflation, we ought to think about returning to wage and price controls.

Can you foresee any circumstances under which you would be williQg to do that and make them work?

THE PRESIDENT: I foresee no circumstances under which I can see the reimposition of wage and price controls. The situation is precisely this: This past week I had a meeting with the Democratic and Republican leadership, plus my own advisers in the field of our national economy.

There was an agreement, number one, that I would not ask for any wage and price control legislation. There was agreement by the leadership on both sides of the rosle that there was no possibility whatsoever that this Congress in 1974 would approve any such legislation. Number three) labor and management almost unanimously agree that wage and price controls at the present time or any foreseeable circumstances were unwise.

Under all tnose circumstances, it means that wage and price controls are out, period.

l'IORE Q Can you give us you!"' pre sent thin Ling on hmv best you might use Mr. Rockefeller as Vice President once he is confirmed?

THE PRESIDENT: I have a lot of ideas. Until Con­ gress confirms Hr. Rockefeller, t..-le are sort of in a honeymoon period. I really shouldn't make any commitments until we. actually get married.

But to be serious, if I might, I think Governor Rockefeller can be extremely important in the new Administra­ tion as my teammate in doing effective work in the area of the Domestic Council. We have to prepare legislative proposals that will go to the Congress when the new Congress comes back in January.

I believe that Governor Rockefeller will take over my responsibilities heading the subcommittee of the Domestic Council on privacy. Governor Rockefeller, with his vast experience in foreign policy, can make a significant contribution to some of our decision-making in the area of foreign policy. Obviously, in addition, he can be helpful, I think, in the political arena under certain guidelines and some restrictions. Q Mr. President, you just ruled out wage and price controls, but I just would like to ask you why Mr. Nixon, when he was President, felt he was compelled to go back to them because the situation was getting out of hand? Can you just reinforce tvhat you told Mr. Brokaw, why you think the situation is that much out of hand yet?

THE PRESIDENT: I can only refer you to the cir­ cumstances and the decision of President Nixon in August of 1971. That was a decision he made under quite different curcumstances. We are in totally different circumstances today. We have gone through a 3-year period, more or less. I think we have learned a few economic lessons that wage and price controls in the current circumstances didn't work, probably created more dislocations and inequities. I see no justification today, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the decision in 1971, to reimpose wage and price controls today.

Q Mr. President, you are still working with the same team of economic advisers who advised your predecessor. As a matter of putting your own stamp on your own Administration, perhaps spurring confidence, do you plan to change the cast of characters?

THE PRESIDENT: There is one significant change. Just within the last 48 hours, Herb Stein, who did a superb job for President Nixon, is going back to the University of Virginia, and Alan Greenspan is taking over and he has been on board, I think two days.

MORE Page 6

That is a distinct chan8e. I think Hr. Greenspan will do an excellent job. We are soliciting, through the economic summit, the views of a great many people from ·the total spectrum of the American society. Their ideas will be vitally important in any new, innovative approaches that · we take. So, I think,between now and the 28th of September, when I think the second day of the summit ends, we will have the benefit of a great many v;ise, experienced individuals in labor, management, agriculture, et cetera, and this will give us, I hope, any new approaches that are wise and beneficial.

MORE

\.

~ ) .. QUESTION: Some oil govcrn:T:~ilts and some comm~rcial cartels, notably Aramco in Saudi Arabia are restricting oil production in order to keep oil prices artifically high. Now the U.S. can't do anything about Venezuela, but it can conceivably vis a vis cartels like Aramco. What steps and actions do you plan to take in this regard?

THE PRESIDENT: I think this points up very vividly the need and necessity for us to accelerate every aspect of Project Independence, I think it highlights the need and necessity for us to proceed with more oil and gas drilling, a greater supply domestically. I believe it points up the require­ ments that we expedite the licensing processes for new nuclear reactors. I think it points up very dramatically the need that we expand our geothermal, our solar research and development in the field: of energy.

In the meantime, it seems to me that the effort that was made several months ago to put together a group of consumer-industrial nations requires that this group meet frequently and act as much as possible in concert, because if we have any economic adverse repercussions because of ,igh oil prices and poor investment policies, it could create 3erious economic problems throughout the industrial world. So it does require, I believe, the short-term action by consumer nations and the long-term actions under Project Independence.

QUESTION: Mr. President, ·to further pursue Helen's inquiry, havethere been any communicationsbetween the Special Prosecutor's office and anyone on your staff regarding President Nixon?

THE PRESIDENT: Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: Mr. ~resident, the beneficial effects of b11dget cutting ori inf.lation will take some time. t'o·: dribble down to the wage earner. What advice would you give the wage earner todav who is having trouble stretching his dollar over his needs. .

THE PRESIDENT: I think every wage earner has to ~ealize we are going through a serious economic problem with ~ inflation in double digits, not as bad as people in many Western European countries, but it will require him or her to follow the example of their Federal Government which is going to tighten its belt and likewise for an interim period of time watch every penny.

QUESTION: Mr. President, you said last March in an interview, I think in Seapower magazine,that you came down quite strongly in favor of establishing a U.S.-Indian Ocean fleet with the necessary bases to support it. Do you still stand by that and do you favor the development of Diego Garcia?

MORE Pa~e a

THE PRESIDENT: I favor the limited expansion of our base at Diego Garcia. I don't view this as any challenge to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union already has three ''- major naval operating bases in the Indian Ocean. This particular proposed construction, I think, is a wise policy and it ought not to ignite any escalation of problems in the,Middle East.

Yes, Sarah.

MORE Page 9

QUESTION: I want to ask about this new veterans benefits bill which Congress passed in the last hours. I understand this is a bill that you favored and maybe spurred the Congress to pass. It saves $200 million.

My question is: Is that a real savings when it g1ves the disabled man less money than an able man and disrupts completely the veterans going to college in September?

THE PRESIDENT: I had no part in just how that House action was taken. I did discuss,,coming back from the Vft·J meeting in Chicago, with a number of Hembers of the House and Senate~ the problem that I faced with the bill that came out of conference, which would have added $780-some million aver and above the budget for this year and a substantial increase for a number of succeeding years.

But that particular compromise was put together and brought to the Floor of the House without any participation by me. I think there are some good provisions in that particular House action. It does tend to equalize the benefits for Vietnam veterans with the benefits that were given to World War II and to Korean veterans.

There are some, I think, inequities, and you probably pointed out one. I hope when the Congress reconvenes within a week or so that they will go back to conference, take a good look and hopefully eliminate any inequities and keep the price down because it is inflationary the way it was and it may be the way it was proposed by the Hou~e.

QUESTION: Mr. President, concerning the Federal budget, will domestic social programs have to bear the whole brunt of the anti-inflation fight or can some money come out of the defense budget, and if so, how much?

THE PRESIDENT: No budget for any department is sacrosanct, and that includes the defense budget. I insist, however, that sufficient money be made available to the Army, the Navy and the Air Force so that we are strong militarily for the purpose of deterring war or meeting any challenge by any adversary. But if there is any fat in the defense budget, it ought to be cut out by Congress or eliminated by the Secretary of Defense.

In the meantime, all other departments must be scrutinized carefully so that they don't have any fat and marginal programs are eliminated.

Mrs. Tufty?

l10RE Page 10

QUESTION: Mr. President, you have given top priority to inflation. Do you have a list of priorities and if so, what is number two? THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, public enemy number one, and that is the one whe have to lick, is inflation. If we take care of inflation and get our economy back on the road to a healthy future, I think most of our other domestic programs or problems will be solved.

We won't have high unempioyment. We will have ample job opportinuties. We will, I believe, give greater opportunities to minorities to have jobs. If we can lick inflation, and we are going to try, and I think we are going to have a good program, most of our other domestic programs will be solved-~ QUESTION: Do you have any plans to revive the Office of Economic Opportunity, and if so, in what areas?

THE PRESIDENT: As I am sure you know, the old poverty program has been significantly changed over the last sever·;\l years. The Headstart program has been taken out of OEO and turned over to the Department of HEW. The healthaspects of the old poverty program are also over in HEW. The Congress just approved, and Mr. Nixon approved, a Legal services corporation, which was another part of the old poverty program. So, we end up really with just CAP, the Community Action Program . • I think most people who have objectively looked at the Community Action Program and the model cities program and maybe some of the other similar progrru~s, there is duplication, there is overlapping.

And under the new housing and urban development bill, local communities are given substantial sums to take a look at the model cities programs and related programs, and they may be able to take up the slack of the ending of the Community Action Programs.

MORE QUESTION: Mr. President, my question applies to a 1972 statement in which you said that an impediment to a re~ional peace settlement is an impediment to preserve the fiction that Jerusale~ is not the capital af '"---- ·rsrael. My question, sir, is would you, nm·l that you set foreign policy,request that the Emb2ssy be shifted from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem along with 17 other nation~l Embassies?

THE PRESIDENT: Under the current circumstance and the importance of getting a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I think that particular proposal ought to stand aside. We must come up with some answers between Israel and the Arab nations in order to achieve a peace that is both fair·and durable.

QUESTION: Mr. President, do you contemplate any changes in our policy 'tvi th Cuba?

THE PRESIDENT: The policy that we have toward Cuba today is determined by the sanctions voted by the Organization of American States and we abide by those actions that were taken by the members of that organization.

Now if Cuba changes its policy toward us and toward its Latin neighbors, we, of course, would exercise the option depending on what the changes were to change our policy. But before we made any change, we would certainly act in concert with the other members of the Organization of American States.

QUESTION: Mr. President, you have emphasized here your option of granting a pardon to the former President.

THE PRESIDENT: I intend to.

QUESTION: You intend to have that option. If an indictment is brought, would you grant a pardon before any trial took place?

THE PRESIDENT: I said at the outset that until the matter reaches me, I am not going to make any comment during the process of whatever charges are made.

QUESTION: Mr. President, two questions related, how long will the transition last, in your opinion, and, secondly, how soon would it be proper and fair for Democrats on the campaign trail this fall to hold you accountable for the economic policy and · the economic problems the country faces? THE PRESIDENT: I can't judge what the Democrats are going to say about my policies. They have been very friendly so far and very cooperative. I think it is a fair statement that our problems domestically, our economic problems, are the joint responsibility of Government. As a matter of fact, I think the_last poll indicated that most Americans felt that our difficulties were caused by Government action and that, of course, includes the President and the Democratic Congress. So we are all in this boat together alan~ with labor and management and everybody else. I don't think ·~- making partisan politics out of a serious domestic problem is good politics. HORE QUESTION: Mr. President, in your fight against inflation, what, if anything, do you intend to do about the next Federal pay raise?

·"-----. THE PRESIDENT: I have made no judgment on that yet, the recommendation has not come to my desk.

QUESTION: Mr. President, when do you expect the SALT talks to resume? Is there disagreement over our position in .the Pentagon and the State Department and other agencies?

THE PRESIDENT: At the present time, there is an effort being made to bring the Department of Defense, the State Department and any others together for a resolution of our, the United States position regarding SALT 2. This decision will be made in the relatively near future. I don't think there is any basic difficulties that cannot be resolved internally within our Government. I believe that Secretary Kissinger is going to be meeting with representatives from the Soviet Union in the near future, I think in October, if my memory is correct, and we, of course, will then proceed on a timetable to try and negotiate SALT 2. I think a properly negotiated effective strategic arms limitation agreement is in the best interests of ourselves, the Soviet Union and a stable international situation. ~ THE PRESS: Thank you, l1r. President.

END (AT 2:59 P.M. EDT)